Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three- vs Four-Drug Antiretroviral Regimens for the Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Gulick, Roy M.·2006·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Three-drug antiretroviral regimens are standard of care for initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) infection, but a 4-drug regimen could improve antiretroviral activity and be more effective than a 3-drug regimen. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety/efficacy of 3-drug vs 4-drug regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. DESIGN: The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5095 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with enrollment and follow-up conducted from March 22, 2001, to March 1, 2005, and enrolling treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 copies/mL or greater from US clinical trials units of the ACTG. INTERVENTIONS: Zidovudine/lamivudine plus efavirenz (3-drug regimen) vs zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir plus efavirenz (4-drug regimen). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to virologic failure (defined as time to first of 2 successive HIV-1 RNA levels > or =200 copies/mL at or after week 16), CD4 cell count changes, and grade 3 or 4 adverse events. HIV-1 RNA data were intent-to-treat, regardless of treatment changes. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-five patients with a baseline mean HIV-1 RNA level of 4.86 log10 (72,444) copies/mL and CD4 cell count of 240 cells/mm3 were randomized. After a median 3-year follow-up, 99 (26%) of 382 and 94 (25%) of 383 patients receiving the 3-drug and 4-drug regimens, respectively, reached protocol-defined virologic failure; time to virologic failure was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.95; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.69-1.33; P = .73). In planned subgroup analyses, increased risk for virologic failure was seen in non-Hispanic black patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.34; P = .003). At 3 years, the HIV-1 RNA level was less than 200 copies/mL in 152 (90%) of 169 and 143 (92%) of 156 patients receiving the 3-drug and 4-drug regimens, respectively (P = .59), and less than 50 copies/mL in 144 (85%) of 169 and 137 (88%) of 156 patients (P = .39). CD4 cell count increases and grade 3 or 4 adverse events were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-naive patients, there were no significant differences between the 3-drug and 4-drug antiretroviral regimens; overall, at least approximately 80% of patients had HIV-1 RNA levels less than 50 copies/mL through 3 years. These results support current guidelines recommending 2 nucleosides plus efavirenz for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection; adding abacavir as a fourth drug provided no additional benefit. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00013520.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.296.7.769

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 219

Metadata

Authors
Gulick, R. M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-08-16
Volume
296
Issue
7
Pages
769
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2117678059
Cited by
219
References
3
FWCI
16.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Three- vs Four-Drug Antiretroviral Regimens for the Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.296.7.769
The paper
Gulick, R. M. (2006). Three- vs Four-Drug Antiretroviral Regimens for the Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.7.769

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.